expressions which have given offence, and insists upon their being received without reserve, thus evincing that He cares not to form a party, or gather around him a multitude of men; but that he wishes all to believe Him, whatever His doctrines, and however grating to their feelings. He would not even deign to soften the trial of faith for His disciples, but allowed them to depart the moment they did not receive His words implicitly. Such is our case, perfectly consistent with the character of Christ, while the other runs counter to every thing we read of Him in the entire history of His divine mission. Such a line of conduct we could unreservedly recommend to every Catholic teacher.

may

It be said that I have had the whole argument my own way; that I have not examined the grounds on which Protestants profess to differ from our explanation of this chapter I answer, that there can be only one true meaning in these words and phrases; and that, if our interpretation be right, it necessarily excludes their's. And I can insist upon this, that before we are called on to give up our interpretation, they show us that the Jews could have understood our Saviour speaking in their language, in the sense attached to His phrases by others, in direct contradiction to ours. maintain, has not yet been done. I do not consider myself, therefore, bound to go into the examination of other interpretations. I did not lay down a proposition, and then attempt to prove it, but I have proceeded by simple induction. have given you a mere analysis of the text; I have proved our interpretation, by examining minutely words and phrases; and the result of all this has been, the Catholic interpretation; and, on this ground, do I admit and accept of that interpretation, to the exclusion of all others.

This, I

But I do not wish to conceal any thing, or shrink from any arguments or objections that may be made; and I have, therefore, taken some pains to look through different divines of the Protestant communion, who have defined their opinions upon this subject of the Eucharist, and to ascertain

what are the grounds,-not on which they object to the Catho lic doctrine, but on which they base and build their figurative interpretation. But before touching on them, I hardiy need remark, that Sherlock, Jeremy Taylor, and others, interpret this chapter of the Eucharist,-even though they dissent from us as to the nature of Christ's presence in this adorable Sacrament. In confirmation of the line of argument which I have followed, I will refer to the authority of two Protestant divines, among the most learned of modern Germany. Doctor Tittman, in examining this passage, allows that it is quite impossible to argue, that our Saviour was speaking of faith, from any interpretation which the Jews could have put upon it; for no usage of speech could have led them to such an explanation. The other authority to which I beg to refer, is also of a Protestant writer, better known by the biblical scholars of this country. It is Professor Tholuck of Halle, of whose extensive acquaintance with oriental languages, and the philological part of biblical literature, I can speak personally. He says, "It is manifest that a transition takes place in our Saviour's discourse."* I quote these testimonies merely in confirmation of what I have advanced.

To come now to objections against our explanation. I have taken some pains, as I before observed, to discover them; and I have been often surprised to find them so few, and so exceedingly superficial. I will content myself with one divine, who has summed up, in a few pages, what he considers the Protestant ground of interpretation. I allude to the Bishop of St Asaph, Doctor Beveridge, who has pithily condensed all the reasons why this passage is not to be interpreted of the Eucharist. His arguments, in the main, are the same as others of the same opinion have given; and I will state his objections, and then answer in the words of Dr. Sherlock. The first argument which he gives for not interpreting this chapter of

*Comment on Je. vi.

the Eucharist, is, "that the Sacrament was not yet ordained." Here is the other divine's answer:-" Suppose we should understand this eating the flesh and drinking the Blood of the Son of man, of feeding on Christ by faith or believing; yet they could understand this no better than the other. It is plain that they did not, and I know not how they should. For to call bare believing in Christ, eating His flesh and drinking His Blood, is so remote from all propriety of speaking, and so unknown in all languages, that to this day, those who understand nothing more by it but believing in Christ, are able to give no tolerable account of the reason of the expression."†

To this we may add, that when cr Lord inculcated to Nicodemus the necessity of Baptism, that sacrament was not yet instituted; and therefore, in like manner, it is no sound argument to say, that, because the Eucharist was not instituted, He could not speak of it as well. These are sufficient answers to the objection; nor do I think that, even without them, it could be set against the varied line of argument, and the minute analysis of the text which I have given you this evening.

The second and third reasons why this discourse should be taken figuratively, are, that our Saviour says, that those who eat His flesh and drink His Blood shall live, and they who eat and drink it not shall die. These are Doctor Beveridge's second and third argument, also much insisted on by Doctor Waterland. The reply to this is very simple-there is always a condition annexed to God's promises. "He that believeth in me hath everlasting life;"—" Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His Blood, ye shall not have life in you." Does the first mean that nothing more than faith is required for salvation? Is not each one bound to keep the The meaning clearly is, he who believeth with such conditions, with such a fructifying faith as shail produce good works, shali have everlasting life. Here,

commandments of God?

* "Thesaurus theolog." Lond. 1710, vol. ii. p. 271. ↑ "Practical Discourse of Religious Assemblies." Lond. 1700, pp. 364-7.

as everywhere else, a condition is annexed to the precept,for we must always understand the implied condition, that the duty be well and rightly discharged; and thus, in the present case, eternal life is promised only to those who worthily par take of the blessed Eucharist.

These are, literally, the only arguments brought by this renowned theologian of the English Church in favour of her interpretation. There is one popular argument, however, which I will slightly notice; though, popular as it may be, it is of no solid weight whatever. It is taken from the 64th verse:- "The flesh profiteth nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Our Lord is here supposed to explain all His former discourse, by saying that the expressions He had used were all to be taken spiritually or figuratively. Upon which supposition I will only make two remarks First, that the words "flesh" and "spirit," when opposed to one another in the New Testament, never signify the literal and figurative sense of an expression, but always the natural and the spiritual man, or human nature, as left to its own impulses, and as ennobled and strengthened by grace. If you will read the nine first verses of the eighth chapter of St Paul to the Romans, you will see the distinction accurately drawn: and, if necessary, this explanation may be confirmed from innumerable other passages. But, secondly, it is unnecessary to take the trouble of quoting, or even reading them, because all modern Protestant commentators agree in this explanation, and allow that nothing can be drawn from that one verse, for setting aside our interpretation. I need only mention the names of Kuinoel, Horne, Bloomfield, and Schleusner, to satisfy you that neither want of learning, nor partiality for our doctrines, has dictated that decision.*

It having been intimated to me, that several of my audience considered this answer too general, and indicative of a desire to slur over an important difficulty, I took the opportunity, in the following lecture, to return to this subject, and quote the authorities at full; as given in the "Lectures on the Eucharist," pp. 140-144. As the subject of that lecture was thereby necessarily intruded on, the interpolation, if I may

But there is one Protestant commentator to whom I have appealed, who seems to let out the secret, and display the real ground on which the figurative interpretation of this chapter rests. "Still more," writes Dr Tholuck, "were it not figurative, it would prove too much, namely, the Catholic doctrine!"* Here is the whole truth; but, my brethren, can such reasoning be for a moment tolerated? The falsehood of the Catholic dogma is assumed in the first instance, and then made the touchstone for the interpretation of texts, on which its truth or falsehood must rest! And this by men who profess to draw their belief from the simple discovery of what is taught in Scripture!

At our next meeting we shall endeavour, with God's help, to enter on the second part of our investigation; the discussion of the words of Institution. In the meantime, I entreat you to ponder and examine carefully the arguments which I have this evening advanced, and try to discover if any where they be assailable. If you find, as I flatter myself you will, that they resist all attempts at confutation, you will be the better prepared for the much stronger proof, which rests upon the simple and solemn words of consecration.

so call it, will be omitted in the publication, and the reader who desire full satisfaction may consult the work just referred to.